Mills: Courts keep Environmental Protection Agency in check

Obama's Environmental Protection Agency received two critical defeats recently, first by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling and then by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Antonio.

The EPA has been on a rampage reinterpreting old regulations, broadening previous definitions and attempting to force new regulations on an unsuspecting public.

However, Michael and Cantell Sackett of Idaho were paying attention and took the EPA all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Their case involves the purchase of some acreage where they wanted to build a home. The EPA vetoed the building of the house without any prior notice to the Sacketts because the property was near a lake and the EPA considered the land to be "wetland" even though there was no water on the property.

The EPA issued an order stating that they will be fined $37,500 per day and face possible criminal charges if they did not restore the property.

The Sacketts attempted to appeal the fines and order, but the EPA does not allow appeals. So, the only ways the Sacketts could defend themselves were to break the law, face some very stiff fines and appeal to the courts.

The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA's compliance order and procedures violated the Sacketts' due process right because the EPA issued a compliance order without a hearing or judicial review.

The EPA pulled the same trick on Range Resources, a Fort Worth independent oil and gas company, when it issued a compliance order against Range because the EPA believed (incorrectly as it turned out) Range had contaminated some water wells in Parker County. The issue involved allegations of pollution of groundwater from hydraulic fracturing by Range. The EPA came in and issued an order without sufficient proof that Range's operations caused an imminent and substantial endangerment. Range tried to appeal to EPA personnel that they were not the source of the contamination, but the EPA would not rescind the order and turned enforcement over to the Department of Justice for prosecution, where it remains today.

Hopefully, the 9-0 ruling will be a signal to the Justice Department and the EPA that its fines and penalty procedures violates American's due process.

The second case came from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (San Antonio) when it said the EPA took too long to accept or deny Texas' procedures that grant air emission permits to utilities and the oil and gas industry.

Justice Jennifer Elrod criticized the EPA for taking four years to deny the state's regulatory process when the legal deadline is 18 months.

The court ordered the EPA to quickly reconsider.

The fight between the EPA and Texas has been front page news for two years.

When cap-and-trade legislation failed to pass the Senate, the Obama administration — under the direction of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson — went on a rampage of issuing new rules and guidelines that make it more difficult for the oil and gas industry to operate. The rulings by the courts hopefully will stop the onslaught of overregulation.